Name with God, as being of the fame nature, he fets up his glory as a new fupreme end, and robs God of his prerogative. If this be with the Father's confent, he fuffers his Name to be polluted and gives his glory to another. Not only do the Evangelifts, as we have already seen, represent Jefus as the object of religious worship; but Jesus himself chearfully accepted the worship that was given him. It has been obferved, that the word used by them, always in the New Teftament, denotes religious adoration. But though it were poffible to prove the reverfe, it would not affect the argument. For when we read of the worship of Jefus, the circumftances recorded are fuch as clearly fhew, that it was not of a civil, but of a religious kind. It might justly be arged, that, on every occafion, he renounced all the honours of royalty. He refused to be made a king, or even for once to act the part of a judge in civil matters. And can it be thought, that he would receive the highest token of veneration ever given to an earthly fovereign? Even fuppofing that he knew, that this was meant merely as civil respect, on his own principles he ought to have refused it. For he conftantly teftified, that his kingdom was not of this world. If, therefore, he received this as civil homage, he voluntarily, and in the most effectual manner, confirmed that carnal people in their wild ideas with refpect to a temporal kingdom of the Meffiah. But we find that frequently the form of this worship was fuch, that although he had known that it was meant merely as civil, he could not lawfully have accepted it. Jairus fell at his feet, Mark v. 22. The Syro-phenician woman. did the fame, ch. vii. 25. His difciples held him by the feet and worshipped him, Mat. xxviii. 9. This kind of worship was sometimes given to kings, or their fubstitutes; but it was unlawful. It was demanded by the kings of Perfia. Various reafons have been given why Mordecai the the Jew would not bow to Haman; but the most natural idea is, that he accounted it unlawful. This is the reason affigned by the Jewish hiftorian, who must have been best acquainted with the opinions of his own nation. "Morde"cai alone," he says, "bowed not to him, fuch obedience "being against the custom of his country*." Even the more intelligent heathens were shocked at this kind of worship, when offered to man, being perfuaded that it was divine. Thus Sueton obferves, that "Lucius was the first "who procured that Claudius Cæfar fhould be adored as "God: for when he returned from Syria, he would not "prefume to approach him otherwife than with his head “veiled, and turning himself round, he fell down before “bim †.” This form, then, being used in the idolatrous worship of man, had Jesus been nothing more, he could not have received it without giving the most exprefs encouragement to idolatry. But we have not a fingle instance of his testifying the least diffatisfaction. No one can doubt, that the Devil demanded religious adoration from him, when he faid; "All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me, Mat. iv. 9. This very worship the wife men gave to Jefus; for the expreffion is the same ‡. Nay, this very worship Jefus accepted from Jairus. For, as Mark fays, He fell down, ch. v. 22. Matthew informs us, that he worshipped him, ch. ix. 18 ||. That is, he worshipped Jefus by proftration, the very manner in which Jefus himself, confidered as man, worshipped the Father. For be Antiq. I. xi. c. 6. Idem miri in adulandum ingenii, primus C. Cæfarem adorari ut Deum inflituit: cum reverfus ex Syria non aliter adire aufus effet, quam capite velato, circum vertenfque fe, deinde procumbens. In Vitell. cap. 2. † Εαν πεσων προσκύνησης μοι. Mat iv. 9. Πεσοντες προσεκύνησαν αυτών ch. ii. II Η Πιπτει προς τις πόδας αυτά. Προσεκύνει αυτώ, be fell on the ground, and prayed, Mark xiv. 35. If Jefus, then, was a mere man, the angel, who refused the worship of John, was more zealous for the glory of God than he. For this was the very way in which John offered to worship this heavenly messenger: I fell at his feet to worship bim*. But he rejected it with horror, affigning it to God as his exclufive prerogative, saying; See thou do it not: I am thy fellow-fervant ;-Worship God, Rev. xix. 10. According to the Socinian doctrine, Jefus ought to have done the fame. For how much foever he be exalted above believers, he is still their fellow-fervant, confidered in his relation to God. If Jefus had no right to religious adoration, would not Peter have been a better foundation for the church, than he? For when Cornelius fell down at his feet, and worshipped him, he took him up, saying, ftand up; I myfelf alfo am a man, Acts x. 25, 26. Jefus claimed the glory of the Father as his. What, in one paffage he calls the glory of his Father, he, in another, calls his own. The Son of man shall come in the glory of bis Father, with his angels, Mat. xvi. 27. When the Son of man fball come in his glory, and all the boly angels with bim, then fhall he fit upon the throne of his glory, ch. xxv. 31. In both places he speaks of his coming to judgment. The glory is bis, and the throne alfo. He could never have uttered fuch language, unless his and the Father's glory were one. He claimed the church as his property, saying, Upon this rock will I build my church, Mat. xvi. 18. But this argument we shall illuftrate afterwards. He afferted his Lordship over the Sabbath. Thus, in reply to the cavils of his enemies, on occafion of his difciples plucking and eating the ears of corn, he said; The Son of man is Lard even of the Sabbath day, Mat xii. 8. As this day was confecrated by God, no one could have a right to loose * Έπεσα εμπροσθεν των ποδών αυτν προσκύνησαι αύξω. the the obligation of the precept, but God himself. It would be vain to say, that Christ received this right by delegation. For, according to the Socinian fyftem, he was not yet come to his kingdom. At any rate, the lordship, here claimed, is evidently unlimited. CHAP. VI. Of the Evidence of our Saviour's Divinity, from bis Miracles. JESUS ESUS manifefted and maintained his claim to a divine character, by the miracles that he wrought. It is granted, that these were more directly meant to prove his divine miffion as Meffiah; and that our Saviour appealed to them in this respect. But they also proved the effential-dignity of the Meffenger. The mere working of a miracle, indeed, will not prove the divinity of the immediate agent. The most that it can prove, is a miffion from God. It also confirms the truth of the doctrine which is taught. But if the immediate agent of the miracle lays claim to Deity, the truth of his doctrine in this respect cannot be denied, without a denial of the reality of the miracle. Jefus wrought miracles in confirmation of his doctrine. These must have confirmed the whole of his doctrine; or they could not confirm any part of it. He taught that he was the true Meffiah: and it is granted by Socinians, that his claim to this character was inconteftably demonstrated by his wonderful works. If he alfo taught that he was God, the fame works must have equally confirmed this branch of his doctrine. But he undoubtedly did fo, by declaring that he had power to forgive fin: and he appealed to miracles as an evidence of this power. When the man fick of the palfy, was brought to him, feeing their faith, be faid, Son---tby fins be forgiven thee. But fome of the Scribes faid within themselves, This man blafphemeth. But he said, Whether is it easier to fay, Thy fins be forgiven thee, or to fay, Arife and walk? He declares, that it is the fame to him to work a miracle, and to forgive fin; both these being equally exertions of divine power. Then he adds; But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive fin, (be faid to the fick of the palfy) Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thine own boufe, Matt. ix. 1.---6. But we propofe to explain this paffage more fully afterwards, as containing a distinct and peculiar proof of our Saviour's Deity, and of his afferting his claim to it. But our Lord did not merely claim particular prerogatives of Deity, and prove his title to these by his works. He exprefsly afferted his unity of effence with the Father, and appealed to his works as incontrovertibly proving the truth of his doctrine in this refpect. Though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know that the Father is in me, and I in bim, John x. 38, 39. This language undoubtedly fignifies, that the Father could as little work, nay exift, without the Son, as the Son without the Father. It fhews in the clearest manner, in what "fenfe he had previoufly faid, I and my Father are one, ver. 30. The Father exifts and operates in him : he exists and operates in the Father: and thus they are one in effence and operation. Now, either the wonderful works of Jefus were not real miracles; or they were decifive proofs of his being God equal with the Father. Socinians will not affert the former. For this would reduce them to the neceffity of entirely denying that Jefus is the Meffiah. They cannot, therefore, evade the force of the latter. But this proof of the Deity of Chrift, is not the only one which arifes from his wonderful works. Thefe very works VOL. I. Р afford |